HB 139 (Wireless Internet Access Requirements, Chief Sponsor: Bradley M. Daw)
smorrey at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 13:41:16 MST 2008
Well the point of that line was simply to say that if the clinician
believes the patient is no longer a danger to society, then the
patient wouldn't have to keep seeing them.
However some accountability must be made when someone makes an
If I put my name to something saying "x won't happen", I should be
liable when and if "x" does occur.
This should be true regardless of the value of "x".
That doesn't mean if I as a clinical psychiatrist say "Little Michael
here isn't going to murder anyone any more ever again, he's all better
now.", and Mr Myers ends up going on a killing spree 20 years later,
that I should be tried for murder.
But criminal negligence and/or negligent homicide would seem to fit
the bill wouldn't it? (Ref: Halloween 1978)
On Jan 24, 2008 1:24 PM, Jonathan Duncan <jonathan at bluesunhosting.com> wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2008, at 12:05, Steve wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 2008 11:00 AM, Bradley Daw <bdaw at utah.gov> wrote:
> >> To: Steven
> >> From: Representative Brad Daw (District 60)
> >> Re: HB 139
> >> First of all, I would like to thank you for your interest and
> >> concern in
> >> my sponsored bill, "Wireless Internet Access Requirements." This
> >> bill
> >> originated out of a personal responsibility that I feel to protect
> >> our
> >> children and our families from the dangers of the internet. Internet
> >> pornography poses a great threat to our children and this bill is
> >> directed to help to keep them safe when they are outside of the home.
> >> The other aspect of protection that this bill offers our families is
> >> protection against pedophiles. Those members of society do not
> >> deserve
> >> free wireless internet service and should not be allowed to easily
> >> and
> >> anonymously access it in public hotspots.
> >> However, I am concerned with many of the critiques of this bill. For
> >> this reason, I would like to set up a time when we can meet together
> >> with a member of the Attorney General's staff and discuss
> >> alternatives
> >> that would make this bill more acceptable for the general public
> >> while
> >> still fulfilling some of the goals I have discussed previously.
> >> Please
> >> let me know if there is a time next week when we can set an
> >> appointment
> >> and discuss the matter further.
> >> I will be circulating a formal email regarding this bill and
> >> answering
> >> many questions and objections about it. In the mean time, I look
> >> forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time and your
> >> concern.
> > Your reason for sponsoring this bill is to "protect the children"
> > Ok, I can understand that you have a desire to protect your children
> > from the dangers of the internet.
> > However this is not the way to do it.
> > Content filtering is always a bad idea in general, most kids are smart
> > enough to bypass it and it tends to get in the way of legitimate use,
> > such as a medical student, or someone studying psychology or any
> > number of thousands of legitimate uses of the internet.
> > As far as I can tell, your bill doesn't specifically require that and
> > I commend you for that much, however "proving adult hood", is also
> > not going to prevent anything either. The bill is unenforceable, and
> > what do you do if the child has presented a "fake id", or handed the
> > "nice man at the counter" mommy and daddy's credit card, or even has a
> > credit card of their very own as I stated previously.
> > The best way to protect children from the "dangers of pornography and
> > the internet", is to educate parents and instil values in the
> > children. You cannot legislate that. It starts from within the
> > family. It is the job of the family and to a lesser extent the church
> > to teach and instil values.
> > If your child is browsing pornography on the internet, meeting up with
> > paedophiles and etc, that means that YOU as a parent are being
> > neglectful of your child. You have failed your child, plain and
> > simple. We already have laws to deal with parental neglect. I fail
> > to see how letting your child browse porn on the internet is any
> > different than leaving your Playboys laying around the house
> > If you want to stop this, then sit down with your child and have a
> > frank discussion about it. It's your job as a parent to do this, but
> > it is not your job as a legislator to create a nanny state in the
> > interests of protecting the children, and in the process
> > inconveniencing everyone else, by creating a crime out of allowing
> > simple public access of a shared community resource. One which was
> > originally funded by taxpayer dollars for the purposes of advancing
> > technology and the state of research.
> > Remember, your job is to protect YOUR children from the dangers of the
> > internet. My job is to protect MY children from the dangers of the
> > internet. I may even disagree with you on what is and is not
> > dangerous, for instance someone may let their child climb a tree,
> > another may not, out of fear the child will fall and harm themselves.
> > Therefore it is not YOUR job to protect MY children.
> > As far as pedophiles not deserving to have free wireless internet
> > access, this law does nothing to prevent that at all.
> > And to be frank there really is nothing you can do except punish a
> > person for creating / distributing and possessing such materials, I'm
> > relatively certain we have a law like that in place already.
> > You could extend the penalty for being a pedophile to require no
> > internet access at all. But how do you let them re-integrate into
> > society. If you don't want them re-integrating then why let them out
> > at all? Either the criminal has paid their dues, to society, or they
> > have not. You cannot pass a law that punishes someone for something
> > that they have not yet done, nor attempted to do. If you think the
> > current punishment for being a pedophile is too lax, then work on a
> > bill to strengthen our penalties against it. I would recommend you
> > lengthen sentences and require regular contact with a clinical
> > psychiatrist at their own expense for the remainder of their life, or
> > until the psychiatrist can say with certainty that the offender will
> > not re-offend and is willing to be held criminally liable if his
> > assertion is incorrect. Then again I would recommend that for any
> > felon.
> > Justice must always be "ex post facto", and the justice system works
> > best when laws are passed that recognize this fact.
> > Laws designed to "prevent" crime, are never successful and place an
> > undue burden upon society.
> > As soon as we start to pass laws that infringe upon the greater good
> > of society in the interests of protecting society from a few
> > individuals, we are trading freedom for security and making a whole
> > new set of criminals out of otherwise ordinary citizens.
> > Usually while doing nothing to actually protect us from the "bad
> > guys".
> > The truth plain and simple, is that this law makes a criminal out of
> > any business owner who decides to leave an open WiFi point for the
> > convenience of his/her customers and/or employees and/or society at
> > large.
> > Since you are a resident of Orem, I urge you to go to
> > http://www.plug.org/ the Provo Linux users group (About half of us are
> > actually in Orem), and sign up for the mailing list there. A sizeable
> > portion of your technically literate and concerned constituents are
> > members there and engage in lively debate on political topics all the
> > time. You could receive feedback in advance from hundreds of people,
> > whom the laws you are proposing would effect, before you propose
> > legislation that boils down to nonsense and you end up losing more
> > voters.
> > I can promise that you will be received well, and this simple act
> > would enhance your credibility with your technically literate
> > constituency.
> "I would recommend you ... require regular contact with a clinical
> psychiatrist at their own expense for the remainder of their life, or
> until the psychiatrist can say with certainty that the offender will
> not re-offend and is willing to be held criminally liable if his
> assertion is incorrect. Then again I would recommend that for any
> I do not agree that anyone should be held liable for the acts of
> anyone else. But that is a tangent to this discussion.
> Other than that, I agree with what you said and I say, once again,
> very well written.
> Brad actually lives a couple streets away from me. I hope he sees
> this as constructive criticism and accepts your offer to check out the
> mailing list. If he is going to sponsor technical legislation he
> really should understand what he is doing. Imagine if all politicians
> actually consulted with their constituents. I think that would be a
> sign or something.
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
More information about the PLUG